Liz Warren Will Stop Weather From Occuring If You Elect Her Or Something

Floods and tornadoes have been happening in the nation since well before we were a nation. They are just things that happen, especially in the Spring when warm, moist air from the south hits the cool/cold air from the north. But, hey, Liz can stop the weather

Hey, if “we” have a moral responsibility, then when will she give up the use of fossil fuels in her own life and go carbon neutral? ‘Climate change’ is so important to her that she only has a little blurb about national security and ‘climate change’ under the “latest announcements” tab on her issues page.

National Security & Climate Change: Climate change is real, it is worsening by the day, and it is undermining our military readiness. But instead of meeting this threat head-on, Washington is ignoring it – and making it worse. I have a plan to make the U.S. military more resilient to climate change, and to leverage its huge energy footprint as part of our climate solution. My energy and climate resiliency plan will improve our service members’ readiness and safety, all while achieving cost savings for American taxpayers.

Basically, she’ll reduce the effectiveness and readiness of the U.S. military, turning it into climate change warriors. All while reducing their budget massively.

Read: Liz Warren Will Stop Weather From Occuring If You Elect Her Or Something »

If All You See…

…are horrible individual homes when people should be (forced into) living in giants complexes, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The H2, with a post on puppers.

Read: If All You See… »

Next To Be Considered “White Supremist”: The #Hashtag

What’s the over/under on the Leftist media falling for this, along with the Liberal base?

From the article

Members of the notorious internet forum 4chan have proposed a new troll campaign aimed at converting the hashtag into a white supremacist symbol.

In a post, on the /pol/ or “politically incorrect” message board, an anonymous user calls on his fellow forum frequenters to begin creating propaganda that incorporates the commonly used pound sign.

“We must start using # to represent the swastika on memes and social media,” the user states.

The far-right campaign, dubbed “Bash the Hash,” a play on the anti-fascist term “Bash the Fash,” aims to remove the ability of sites like Twitter to use the popular symbol.

Remember, these were the same people who created the meme which made the OK sign to be a far-right/white supremacist symbol to see if they could punk the media and leftists. They succeeded 100%. Heck, even when news outlets mentions that it was an operation to punk the media, they still have Outrage in the same articles over the use of the OK sign by someone or some group.

While 4chan’s latest campaign is almost certain to be largely ineffective, the hoax highlights how the battle of ideas is fought in the digital era.

You sure of that? The article has a bunch of tweets where 4chaners are trying to make it happen, including

Read More »

Read: Next To Be Considered “White Supremist”: The #Hashtag »

The Green New Deal Can Provide For America’s Security Or Something

We’ll be more secure while deal with rolling brownouts and blackouts, planned power outages, and giant energy bills under the plan (and lots more bad things, but energy is the specific topic). And the inability to travel very far or often. Thor Hogan attempts to tell us why this would be great

The best sales pitch for the Green New Deal

The Green New Deal has faced a bevy of criticism since its introduction, most of it from climate-denying Republicans. Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) and Sen. Edward J. Markey (Mass.) have led the charge for the proposal with an emphasis on its potential economic benefits as the pathway to victory. But an equally good argument, and one that may even bring skeptics and Republicans into the fold, involves the national security benefits of fighting the climate crisis.

Put bluntly, the Green New Deal is the biggest step we can take toward a more secure America.

For nearly two decades, since 9/11, most Americans have been convinced that Middle East-based terrorism is the greatest threat to our nation. What most of us failed to ask, however, was why we were targeted. After the attacks, cable news anchors asked “Why do they hate us?” without really seeming to care about the answer.

The explanation isn’t particularly complicated. For close to three-quarters of a century, Americans have involved themselves in the domestic politics of many countries in the Middle East, often with little regard for how those actions affected the residents of these nations. Unsurprisingly, this behavior angered many people in the region.

Gotta love the Leftist belief that the attack on 9/11 was our own fault, eh?

Anyway, Thor jumps through an interesting look at oil production since World War II, how it gave power to the Middle East and particularly Saudi Arabia (failing to mention much of America’s problems with our own production is due to Leftist’s blocking drilling and new refineries here in America)

The costs of this decision have been immense. American foreign policy became focused on four objectives: to persuade the region’s oil-producing nations to increase production and avoid embargoes; to provide them with military aid to ensure their internal and external security; to encourage the discovery and development of new oil fields; and to send U.S. military forces to the region if required to guarantee the flow of oil to America’s allies.

As a result, the United States found itself engaged in three petroleum-related wars over a quarter-century, which cost us thousands of lives and at least $4 trillion — costs that never show up at the pump. At the same time, we earned the hatred of millions of people who were oppressed by the autocratic rulers we kept in place to do our bidding. Some of them joined terrorist organizations that aimed to punish the “Great Satan.”

Interestingly, the only war that was really about oil was the one Obama launched with France and Britain against Libya, meant to protect the flow of oil to those two countries when Libya was in a civil war.

This is where the Green New Deal can come in. As a former energy secretary and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Bill Richardson, has written, “Every American can make the intuitive connection between global dependence on Middle Eastern oil, dissent in Middle Eastern societies, and terrorist attacks on the United States.” Removing ourselves from the region would eliminate this problem. If we depart, anger toward our nation would fade over time, as would the threat to our country.

So, we’re going to drill our own oil, right? Because the U.S. has a ton of proven oil fields. Heck, we can also get a lot from Canada. This would make everything go, right?

Adoption of a Green New Deal would make this possible by providing newly developed clean energy supplies to power electric vehicle fleets as they enter the market en masse. If we don’t need Middle Eastern oil because renewables are providing us with what we require, then we don’t need to intervene in the region in toxic ways.

See? It’s so simple! We’ll simply wave our magic wand and everyone will have electric vehicles in their driveways powered by unicorn farts and pixie dust. It would be great if we (and a goodly chunk of the world) didn’t need Middle East oil: we could leave that region to mostly burn. But, since the world is nowhere close to being able to replace oil with “clean energy supplies” at this time, and won’t be for there’s no telling how long, this is just another pipe dream.

Read: The Green New Deal Can Provide For America’s Security Or Something »

Democrat Groups Plan To Put Abortion Rights Front And Center For 2020

How do you think this will play with the average voter for the 2020 elections?

Democratic groups gear up to use abortion rights as attack on GOP in 2020

Democrats are gearing up to use abortion rights as an attack against Republicans in 2020, seeking to paint the party as too extreme after the passage of sweeping laws restricting the procedure by GOP legislatures across the country.

Presidential contenders, including Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), are already taking the issue head-on, most recently joining the Democrats’ condemnation of a comprehensive abortion ban signed into law in Alabama that bans the procedure in almost all circumstances, including rape and incest.

Democratic groups are mobilizing as well, hoping to put the abortion debate front and center in state and local races in 2020 as they look to put Republicans on the defensive at a time when the GOP lost the House last year, in large part by losing suburban female voters.

Abortion was already expected to be a key issue in 2020 as anti-abortion rights advocates grow hopeful of overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade decision in the Supreme Court after the appointment of two new conservative justices by President Trump.

“We are buckled in. We are ready to go, but we’re not going to be playing defense,” Jennifer Holdsworth, a senior political strategist for the Democratic firm MWWPR, told The Hill.

Holdsworth added that groups such as Planned Parenthood Action Fund, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and individual state organizations in Ohio, Missouri, Georgia and Alabama would help “lead the fight.”

Abortion on demand is the #1 commandment for Democrats, and they demand that all people running for office in their party toe the line. But, how will it play pushing the murder of the unborn, which is done mostly because having a baby would be inconvenient, as a giant issue for elections? Especially when Democrats have shown themselves to be massively extreme as of late, defending late term abortion right up to the point where the child will soon be delivered? That they are defending letting a child born alive from an abortion die? Republicans can simply ask any Dem candidate “what restrictions on abortion do you approve of?” to show how extreme they are, because the Democrat will not approve of any.

How will this play for the average voter? You might get polls showing a bare majority in support, but, that doesn’t mean that voters approve of the extreme views of the abortion/murder groups, and certainly do not want it being “front and center.” Especially with all the other extremist stuff Democrats will be running on.

Read: Democrat Groups Plan To Put Abortion Rights Front And Center For 2020 »

Bummer: It’s Too Late For The Green New Deal, So, Have To Go Radical

This would be the Green New Deal that Democrats do not want to actually vote on, and was already pretty darned radical to start with

It’s Too Late for a Green New Deal; Can Other Radical Plans Work?

We all owe a huge debt of gratitude to those who have articulated the Green New Deal (GND), especially Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Sunrise Movement. We needed something that focused attention on how serious climate change has become and the need for government action. The GND has shattered the neoliberal insistence upon incremental, market-oriented climate mitigation.

But, considering the emerging climate science and our diminished carbon budget after at least three decades of denial, and with carbon concentration in the atmosphere higher than it has been in 3 million years, it is too late to speed up the slow transition from fossil fuels to renewables with government facilitated renewable building; too late to build renewables under a Keynesian plan that employs all the workers in transition; too late for a transition that makes money and lets us keep living our present lifestyles.

The author, Bill Henderson at the uber far left Truthout, builds up to the fin

…Fossil fuels must now be kept in the ground. Governments must regulate a scheduled, rapid, managed decline of all fossil fuel production based upon the best science and risk-management expertise.

End use of fossil fuels

Of course, like rejecting “Big Government” as a mitigation option, a government-regulated, managed decline affecting long-term international investment is anathema to the business elites who control our governments and many other institutions in our society. They will have to accept the duty of government to regulate in this emergency and join with all other stakeholders in the climate mobilization.

Massive government control of economies.

Importantly, instead of a plan offered to consumers to buy their support, climate mitigation should be a responsibility of citizens who recognize their duty to limit damage to future generations. We don’t need urgent action on climate to make life more comfortable and secure for the world’s richest people.

Elites jamming through control of our lives in a fashion, dare I say, reminiscent of the Third Reich and Communist China.

Funny how this always boils down to the same Fascist, Authoritarian type governmental systems.

Read: Bummer: It’s Too Late For The Green New Deal, So, Have To Go Radical »

If All You See…

…is horrible pavement used to help move fossil fueled vehicles, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Raised On Hoecakes, with a post on a strange court case.

Read: If All You See… »

Memorial Day 2019 Pinups (Sticky For The Day)

More below the fold

Read More »

Read: Memorial Day 2019 Pinups (Sticky For The Day) »

2020 Is Team Oil Vs Team ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

They keep telling us that the issue of ‘climate change’ is super important. They did this in 2016. And 2012. And 2008. They keep telling us that it should be super important during general elections and mid-terms. During state and local elections. Yet, it rarely ends up on the front pages of those who keep telling us it is important

2020 is team oil vs. team climate change. There’s no middle.

As Americans gas up for the start of the summer driving season, they’ll pay the highest Memorial Day prices at the pump since 2014. And they’ll have trouble finding any sort of middle lane in the oil wars of American politics.

Voters in 2020 can choose President Donald Trump, who brags about oil production — the fact that the United States is now the largest producer of oil on Earth.

Or voters can opt for the Democratic presidential candidate, whoever it ends up being. All of them agree that humans contribute to climate change — which is nearly universally described as an existential threat — and that the US must do something about carbon emissions immediately.

Nearly every Democrat or Democratic-leaning voter – 96% in a CNN poll in April — wants a candidate who will take aggressive action on climate change.

It’s a far less important issue for most Republicans. An NBC News poll in December found 71% of Democrats saying climate change required immediate action compared with 15% of Republicans.

CNN’s Zachary B Wolf is kind of correct that it appears that it is one or the other. In theory on the Democrat side, of course, because where it breaks down is putting this in practice, something even most Warmists do not want when those rules, regs, and laws will personally affect their own lives negatively. Further, when you start getting deep into the primaries, and certainly the general election, people want to hear more about the “pocketbook” issues, the bread and butter issues, not bad weather which has always happened and taxing the hell out of their lives, especially when it would make it harder to travel.

The same people whining about oil will be using a lot of it this weekend, as will the people campaigning on ‘climate change.’

Just as Trump’s climate change denials led him to isolate the US by withdrawing from the Paris climate accord, any Democrat who beat him in 2020 would, presumably, jump back in immediately, an epic whipsaw.

Ultimately in 2020, if it’s an election decided in the middle, the question that will be answered is whether the country will do something about climate change or nothing at all.

If ‘climate change’ becomes that big of an issue in this election, the Warmists will lose, like they lose at the ballot box the vast majority of the time. Does anyone think Trump won’t attack the Warmists as pushing big government policies that will spike the cost of living and restrict liberty? How will the Democrats respond to that?

Read: 2020 Is Team Oil Vs Team ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

NYC Gun Grabbers Change Law To Avoid Potential Supreme Court Loss

Not mentioned is the notion that New York City could change the regulation back if the Supreme Court decides to drop the case, because gun grabbers loke to play lots and lots of cases (though the Court will most likely not drop the case)

Fearing Supreme Court Loss, New York Tries to Make Gun Case Vanish

A couple of weeks ago, the New York Police Department held an unusual public hearing. Its purpose was to make a Supreme Court case disappear.

In January, the court agreed to hear a Second Amendment challenge to a New York City gun regulation. The city, fearing a loss that would endanger gun control laws across the nation, responded by moving to change the regulation. The idea was to make the case moot.

The move required seeking comments from the public, in writing and at the hearing. Gun rights advocates were not happy.

“This law should not be changed,” Hallet Bruestle wrote in a comment submitted before the hearing. “Not because it is a good law; it is blatantly unconstitutional. No, it should not be changed since this is a clear tactic to try to moot the Scotus case that is specifically looking into this law.”

David Enlow made a similar point. “This is a very transparent attempt,” he wrote, “to move the goal post in the recent Supreme Court case.”

The rule itself was about restricting where law abiding citizens could take their firearms. They were limited to 7 shooting ranges in the city (which the city would also like to shut down), but not to second homes or shooting ranges outside the city. The changes would remove those restrictions. If the court drops review of the case, you know that those restrictions would slowly re-appear. Because if the gun grabbers can’t do the Big Law, they’ll do death by a thousand rules.

Still, the city seems determined to give the plaintiffs — three city residents and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association — everything they had sued for. The plaintiffs, in turn, do not seem to want to take yes for an answer.

If you go back to the bold in the first excerpt, it is very easy to see why. They want the Supreme Court to rule to avoid future attempts by NYC (and across the country) to limit movement with a legally and constitutionally acquired firearm to this degree.

The court has said the “voluntary cessation” of government policies does not make cases moot if the government remains free to reinstate them after the cases are dismissed. But formal changes in laws may be a different matter.

To hear the plaintiffs tell it, the court should not reward cynical gamesmanship.

“The proposed rule making,” they wrote, “appears to be the product not of a change of heart, but rather of a carefully calculated effort to frustrate this court’s review.”

And now we wait. I’d personally bet that SCOTUS will review the case, and NYC and other gun grabbers will not like the ruling.

Read: NYC Gun Grabbers Change Law To Avoid Potential Supreme Court Loss »

Pirate's Cove